Electronic training aids (frequently referred to as “shock collars”) have been in use since the late 1960's to assist trainers in controlling the activities of the dogs they train. These early electronic training aids punished dogs for misbehaving when, in some cases, the dogs were responding correctly to the commands given, at least the response was correct from the perspective of the dog.
Gradually, the use of electronic training aids, in the form of “shock collars”, became unacceptable; although these devices were capable of stopping certain misbehaviors. Shock collars could not subtly assist dogs in acquiring consistent new skills, and as a consequence, were not beneficial for the well being of the dogs. The results were visually unappealing to most owner/trainers, and especially were not tolerated by many onlookers.
In order to answer customer's concerns and to avoid negative press, in the late 1970's manufacturers began offering alternative methods, either by controlling the magnitude of the electrical “shock” output by means of short bursts of energy which were called “momentary” stimulation, or manufacturers began incorporating audio/ultrasonic sounds produced by a speaker or mechanical buzzers. By the early 1980's, some manufacturers began offering the capability for the owner/trainer to manually pre-set the output “intensity” levels of each dog's collar stimulator. This culminated into the “intensity outputs” becoming more of an electrical stimulation style (much like the human TENS devices), where the intensity levels could be adjusted from an almost indiscernible level upwards to an original higher setting.
After the advancement of different intensity levels, owner/trainers quickly saw the advantage of using lower levels of electrical stimulation to encourage new behaviors, as now the dogs were not “shocked” into submission. The next request from owner/trainers was to have the ability to remotely activate different intensities from their own hand-held transmitters, rather than predicting and pre-setting the levels at the dog's collar. Here, having the correct level and executing it instantly allowed for an improved “fit” for both the handler and the dog, without the previous side effects.
In addition to the advancements in electrical stimulation, audible sounds continue to be employed along with motor-driven vibrators (much like the ones found in cell phones and pagers). Although this style of cue has been offered as an alternative to electrical stimulation (a less aversive motivator), such alternative cue stimulators have been produced at only one pre-set output level. Generally speaking, most dogs initially respond; but soon the “noise” becomes a neutral stimulus, and then it is quickly lost in the dog's own background noise. This remains, unless the now perceived neutral cue is reinforced by a higher order stimulus, wherein the higher order stimuli on these devices is either a “momentary” or “continuous” style of electrical stimulation. In the past, however, all three of these different cue agents have been activated independently, on individual and separate control buttons at the transmitting device held by the owner/trainer.
Although the foregoing limited advancements helped raise the performance level of dogs during training sessions, the devices still were activated through the mind's-eye (emotional state) of the owner/trainer. Thus, the timing over the application of any one of these cueing devices was suspect and based upon the comprehension level of the dog and the discrimination capability of the dog.
From the scientific literature, those in the field of animal behavior are aware of the basic principles of Classical and Instrumental conditioning. In Classical conditioning, an outside stimulus predicts an outcome; wherein with Instrumental conditioning, the response of the animal predicts an outcome. These two powerful conditioning theories work together simultaneously (alternating) on a minute-to-minute, event-to-event, basis, and are predicted on wherever the learning acquisition of the animal is for each task.
Also, from available scientific literature, it is known that fundamental animal learning processes utilize expectation, prediction, and anticipation; where the animal comes to anticipate a future event based upon “information” or stimuli that it receives from its environment. The animal then uses these signals to translate them into anticipated behavioral changes. The animal must be able to anticipate patterns in its stimuli input in order to resolve matters of sequencing (chaining) and to anticipate various relationships. In short, the fundamental task for any animal is to be able to predict changes and to anticipate its future. Learning is the acquisition of expectancies based upon patterns of stimulus inputs and response feedback, which allow an animal to behave in an adaptive fashion.
With most competitive dogs of all breeds and disciplines now being conditioned with the use of one of a variety of these different electronic training devices, a point has been reached where an improved training tool is needed to further enhance the capability of a dog to acquire its own “belief” that new behaviors or responses are what lead to positive outcomes. Consequently, it is desirable to provide an electronic system which can mimic other known animal behavioral modification principles to allow the animal undergoing training to focus on its own performance as a result of compliance with the owner/trainer's desire.